Meirs nomination causing raw nerves to erupt

My second dispatch in one day. I couldn't keep my mouth shut after stewing some more about this nomination

"Where there is smoke there is fire" is an old saying I picked up from dad and I still use it because it always seems to have some validity to it.

What brings that phrase to mind is the recent exchange between White House Press Sec. Scott McClellan and the press today.

The subject of Harriet Meirs withdrawing her nomination came up [see article below] and off went Scott on the reporter. Obviously this nomination isn't going as scripted and probably even Harriot has suggested just that scenario-- behind closed doors of course.

It seems that no matter how badly the President wants to put a shine on his chosen Justice--he has been unable to rally much support outside the usual party talking heads. Another saying of dad's was "you can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear" Unfortunately this applies to this lady and with all fairness--the president did her a dis-service by choosing her as his candidate.

What bothers me about our President is that whenever he makes a mistake--he absolutely refuses to back down or change direction. It takes a strong person to admit error and do what is right.And this man will not own up to mistakes.

Social Security reform, border protection, weapons of mass destruction,Iraq war, energy, tax cuts--a whole slew of issues that are very much still up in the air--and some that are in place and have yet to bear fruit.And now we have this fiasco.

Poor Harriet is facing so much conservative backlash that even if she wins confirmation--she will be held so closely to a microscope while on the court that her every decision will be subject to scrutny above the normal second guessing.

Will she need to excuse herself from every case that suggests a religious bias--after the President has made it clear that he "knows" her. That sounds to me like he wants a puppet not an independent Justice. And now it is suggested by him and his talking heads that it is her "qualifications" that were considered --and the reason she was picked!! What qualification are you referring to Mr. President?

Ann Coulter, Peggy Noonan, George Wills, Pat Buchannan, are some print columnists up in arms-- while a whole host of conservative blogs and other media personalities are outraged by this pick. Need I mention the religious right--including me who are feeling outright deceived.

If ever there was a time for G W to do what is right it is now. He needs to step forward, admit this mistake, and offer up a qualified applicant. We are still living with his daddies appointment- Justice Breyers. We don't need a seperate Bush to make a "supreme" mistake. When their terms end they go off fishing and we end up with the shaft.

This is my second post on this subject and I pray that before I make another post on this that harriet will be back running the Lottery in Texas or some other job more to her qualifications.

OK Yodi, help me pull the stump back off the sidewalk.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WND AT THE WHITE HOUSE
McClellan gets testy
over Miers questions
Reference to her possible withdrawal elicits accusations from spokesman

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: October 13, 2005

By Les Kinsolving
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

White House press secretary Scott McClellan today got a bit impatient with reporters asking him about the possibility of Harriet Miers withdrawing her nomination to the Supreme Court, asking rhetorically at one point, "Isn't it my right to talk and say what I want to?"

The verbal jousting began as a reporter asked about a possible withdrawal by Miers, President Bush's choice to fill the seat of Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.


"Some conservatives have suggested this week, or speculated, that while President Bush would never withdraw Miers' nomination, that she might decide that she can't weather the storm and withdraw. Can you give us just some idea of her tenacity to be able to withstand all this fire from the right and the left?" asked one reporter, according to the official transcript.

McClellan bristled at the suggestion, saying, "Those who know Harriet Miers are strongly supportive of her nomination, and strongly support her being confirmed to the United States Senate [sic]."

The spokesman then challenged the reporter, saying he had not reported on Miers' qualifications.

Said McClellan: "I haven't seen you out there reporting about some of her qualifications and her record, and I see by the tone of your question that you want to get into some of these side issues."

A charge then came back to McClellan: "You divided your own party," referring to the many GOP senators who have not committed to supporting Miers.

Later, the spokesman responded again to the possibility of a Miers withdrawal, saying, "Anyone that knows her record and experience wouldn't be making such a suggestion. … Some of you all wanted to focus more on religion. We focused on her qualifications and record."

Indeed, WND asked McClellan earlier about Miers' religion, receiving a response devoid of the subject. Said McClellan: " The President believes that a Supreme Court justice should strictly interpret our Constitution and laws and not try to legislate from the bench, and that's what Harriet Miers is committed to doing."

At one point during the fracas, McClellan was asked, "Scott, isn't the idea we ask the questions and you provide the answers?"


Responded the spokesman: "Yes, and I was providing the answer. Can I not say what I want to say? … Isn't it my right to talk and say what I want to?"

By the end of the briefing, several reporters became defensive, with one claiming McClellan had "attacked" him.

Another reporter, referring to McClellan's desire that the Miers confirmation be a "dignified process," asked, "Scott, you used the term 'dignified process.' Is it dignified to pejoratively characterize the motives or tactics of a reporter who is trying to cover a story?"

Speaking of dignity, McClellan earlier refused to answer a question WND posed about the lack of response by homosexual interest groups to Oprah Winfrey's child-molester-locator reward program – in which the TV host pays $100,000 to those who turn in wanted criminals.

"I'm not going to dignify that [question]," McClellan said, before moving on to another reporter's question.

Les Kinsolving is WorldNetDaily's White House correspondent and a talk-show host for WCBM in Baltimore. His show can be heard on the Internet at www.wcbm.com 8-10 p.m. Eastern each weekday.